Tags: Virtual Office Business PlanEssay On Football HooliganismGreat Gatsby Essay QuestionsArgumentative Essay About CollegeThesis Theme Changelog95 Theses Date
It was a device invented by the courts for the protection of attorneys against the knavery of their clients by disabling clients from receiving the fruits of the recoveries without paying for the valuable services by which the recoveries were obtained. If the fund recovered was in possession or under the control of the court, it would not allow the client to obtain it until he had paid his attorney, and in administering the fund it would see that the attorney was protected.
Thomas Mc Manus suffered personal injuries due to the negligence of the defendant National Transportation Co., Inc. Necessary treatment was given to him, and in due time he was discharged.
Upon leaving the institution, he executed a paper directing and authorizing the tort feasor to pay the sum of $271.75 for hospitalization and medical care, and expressly assigning to the hospital such amount out of his share of the proceeds of any settlement or judgment that may result from his claim for damages for personal injuries.
For the hospital is a stranger to the cause of action, and to the legal proceedings for its enforcement or compromise. Nor can the hospital claim any rights by reason of subrogation.
Besides, the services of a hospital are purely voluntary, though they may be most valuable.
An interesting commentary on the attorney's lien and its enforcement reads: "The lien, as thus established, is not strictly like any other lien known to the law, because it may exist although the attorney has not and cannot, in any proper sense, have possession of the judgment recovered.
They contribute to the result or product — the verdict and the judgment representing, to a great extent, the fruit of the lawyer's labors.
"The fact that there was no fund then in existence, or any claim which could then be enforced by action, did not prevent the instrument taking effect as an equitable assignment." ( Jones v.
The statutory prohibition against the assignment of a cause of action for personal injuries is the outgrowth or the survival of the laws against maintenance.
Repeated holdings set the judicial mind at rest on this point. In the past champerty and maintenance was a dreaded danger. ) As to the transfer of this cause of action itself, the language of the statute seems plain; the prohibition is positive and absolute and existed before the enactment of the statute.
549.) Was this assignment prohibited by public policy or statute? The issue of public policy causes the court no concern. of the Personal Property Law is a relic-like remnant of the laws of a social system that one is happy is long dead and buried.